[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#21000: coreutils 8.24 sort -h gets ordering wrong
From: |
Christopher Samuel |
Subject: |
bug#21000: coreutils 8.24 sort -h gets ordering wrong |
Date: |
Tue, 07 Jul 2015 12:00:14 +1000 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 |
Hi there,
When trying to sort with the -h option (--human-numeric-sort) it seems
to fail to get the ordering correct, for instance in a column of values
of memory usage from the Slurm HPC batch system you get this:
2868768K
2875504K
3278652K
3435484K
3461744K
4050208K
419.50M
421M
422M
447.50M
451M
467M
478.50M
479M
496M
998M
1.09G
1.31G
1.31G
1.31G
and yet the values in KB are far in excess of the GB values, let alone
the MB ones (4050208K being the just over 4GB).
Looking at the source it appears that this ordering is derived purely on
an ordering of the suffixes rather than doing any form of conversion.
I had then thought that I needed to specify the -n option as well, but
it turns out that the -n and -h options are mutually exclusive for some
reason.
All the best,
Chris
--
Christopher Samuel Senior Systems Administrator
VLSCI - Victorian Life Sciences Computation Initiative
Email: address@hidden Phone: +61 (0)3 903 55545
http://www.vlsci.org.au/ http://twitter.com/vlsci
- bug#21000: coreutils 8.24 sort -h gets ordering wrong,
Christopher Samuel <=
- bug#21000: coreutils 8.24 sort -h gets ordering wrong, Pádraig Brady, 2015/07/07
- bug#21000: coreutils 8.24 sort -h gets ordering wrong, Linda Walsh, 2015/07/15
- bug#21000: coreutils 8.24 sort -h gets ordering wrong, Paul Eggert, 2015/07/15
- bug#21000: coreutils 8.24 sort -h gets ordering wrong, Linda Walsh, 2015/07/15
- bug#21000: coreutils 8.24 sort -h gets ordering wrong, Paul Eggert, 2015/07/15
- bug#21000: coreutils 8.24 sort -h gets ordering wrong, Linda Walsh, 2015/07/15
- bug#21000: coreutils 8.24 sort -h gets ordering wrong, Christopher Samuel, 2015/07/20
bug#21000: coreutils 8.24 sort -h gets ordering wrong, Paul Eggert, 2015/07/07